By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
Panelists are largely neutral to bearish on Goldman Sachs (GS) at 18x forward earnings, citing cyclical nature of M&A and investment banking fees, and uncertainty around IPO windfalls. Gemini's 'pivot-to-alternatives' thesis is debated, with Claude, Grok, and ChatGPT expressing skepticism about its ability to create a structural floor for earnings.
Risk: Cyclical decline in M&A and investment banking activity
Opportunity: Potential recurring fees from alternatives pivot
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
One of the leading investment banks in the world, Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS), recently stated its intention to raise its quarterly dividend by 11% to $5.00 per share, up from $4.50 per share.
The dividend raise comes after the bank passed the Federal Reserve's annual stress test with flying colors. Goldman Sachs, like many other large banks, has been in the cycle of raising its dividend in the third quarter, after the annual stress test results come out. This will mark the 15th consecutive year that Goldman Sachs has raised its dividend.
Missed Nvidia in 2009? This Rare Signal Is Flashing Again. In 2009, a "Double Down" signal flashed for a little-known chipmaker called Nvidia. For the first time in years, that same "Total Conviction" signal is flashing for a company 1/100th the size of Nvidia. Continue »
The stress test results, designed to measure a large bank's capital strength in the event of a major recession or economic shock, showed that Goldman Sachs has more than adequate capital to navigate a downturn. Its score came in above the median common equity tier 1 capital ratio among the 32 banks in the severely adverse test scenario the Fed presented.
"Today's announcement reflects the continued strength of our earnings and capital position, and our commitment to delivering sustainable, long-term returns to shareholders," Goldman Sachs Chairman and CEO David Solomon said. "Our planned dividend increase reflects the strength of our franchise, our earnings power, and our confidence in our ability to support clients, invest for the long term, and deliver sustainable returns to shareholders."
Goldman Sachs has been having an excellent year in 2026, with its stock price up about 16.5% year to date. Goldman Sachs has been fueled by a robust mergers and acquisitions (M&A) market. The first quarter was among the best ever, with some $1.2 trillion in deals, up 26% year over year.
Among the major investment banks, Goldman Sachs derives a higher percentage of its revenue from investment banking and M&A than its chief competitors, so when M&A is hot, Goldman Sachs stock will typically see bigger gains. When M&A cools, it would likely go the other way, leading to a larger drawdown for Goldman Sachs.
In the first quarter, Goldman Sachs saw revenue increase 14% year over year, driven by investment banking, which posted a 48% increase.
Goldman Sachs reports second-quarter earnings on July 14, and they could be big. The M&A market has remained hot, highlighted by the massive IPO of Space Exploration Technologies, for which Goldman Sachs is the lead underwriter. According to a Marketwatch report, it could be one of the biggest underwriting payouts for an investment bank ever. Goldman Sachs could earn $100 million in fees from the SpaceX deal alone, according to a CNBC report.
Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have been tapped as the lead underwriters for the upcoming OpenAI and Anthropic IPOs, which will also be massive when they hit over the next 12 months.
With the M&A market expected to have its best year since 2021 in 2026, Goldman Sachs stock looks like a great buy right now, trading at 18 times forward earnings.
Before you buy stock in Goldman Sachs Group, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Goldman Sachs Group wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $398,052! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,181,688!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 892% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 205% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.
**Stock Advisor returns as of June 30, 2026. *
Dave Kovaleski has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Goldman Sachs Group. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"Goldman Sachs' current valuation at 18x forward earnings leaves no room for execution errors in the highly volatile and politically sensitive AI IPO pipeline."
Goldman Sachs (GS) is currently priced for perfection, trading at 18x forward earnings. While the dividend hike and M&A rebound are positive, the market is essentially pricing in a 'goldilocks' scenario where IPOs for SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic proceed without regulatory friction or valuation compression. Investors are ignoring the cyclical volatility inherent in Goldman's revenue mix; if the IPO window narrows due to macroeconomic headwinds or antitrust scrutiny—particularly regarding AI concentration—GS lacks the diversified retail banking cushion of peers like JPMorgan Chase. The dividend increase is a welcome signal of capital health, but at these multiples, the margin of safety is razor-thin.
The IPO pipeline for high-profile AI firms could trigger a massive influx of capital into the equity markets, driving fee income for Goldman far beyond current analyst consensus estimates.
"GS is a cyclical M&A play masquerading as a growth story; the valuation is fair only if deal flow remains at 2026 peak levels, which history suggests is unlikely."
GS at 18x forward earnings looks reasonable only if the M&A boom sustains—a big if. The article conflates stress-test passage (a regulatory checkbox) with investment merit. Yes, Q1 was strong: 48% IB growth, $1.2T in deals. But M&A is cyclical and front-loaded; the SpaceX/OpenAI/Anthropic fees are one-time windfalls, not recurring revenue. The dividend raise is confidence theater—banks always raise post-stress-test. The real risk: if deal flow normalizes in H2 2026 or 2027, GS's IB-heavy mix becomes a liability, not an asset. The article assumes the cycle extends indefinitely.
If M&A cools even moderately—say, back to 2023 levels—GS's IB revenue could drop 30-40%, and at 18x forward earnings, the stock reprices sharply lower. The article ignores that consensus already prices in a strong 2026; disappointment in Q2 or Q3 could trigger a 15-20% drawdown.
"The article underplays how cyclical M&A concentration leaves GS exposed to a potential 2026 slowdown already partially priced into the 18x multiple."
Goldman Sachs' 11% dividend hike and clean stress-test result confirm capital strength, but the bullish M&A narrative already drove a 16.5% YTD gain and leaves little margin if deal flow moderates. GS derives a larger share of revenue from investment banking than peers, amplifying both upside and downside. The SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic mandates could generate outsized fees, yet these are one-time events whose timing and size remain uncertain. At 18x forward earnings the stock is not cheap relative to its historical range or the sector, so further re-rating requires sustained 2026 deal volume rather than a single strong quarter.
Even if M&A slows, GS's diversified trading and asset-management arms could offset investment-banking weakness, keeping earnings resilient and supporting the dividend.
" Goldman’s dividend boost and strong CET1 headroom give it near-term downside protection, but sustained upside requires a persistent, fee-rich M&A/underwriting cycle."
Goldman’s 11% dividend lift to $5 and Fed stress-test outperformance underscore capital strength and a cyclical earnings leg from M&A and underwriting. The piece highlights SpaceX IPO fees and OpenAI/Anthropic deals as near-term catalysts and pins valuation at about 18x forward earnings — a reasonable premium if the M&A cycle stays red-hot. But the article glosses over durability concerns: underwriting and advisory fees are exquisitely cyclical; a cooling M&A cycle or sudden macro shock could compress fee pools faster than dividend coverage, even with CET1 headroom. Also some claims (OpenAI/Anthropic IPOs, $100m SpaceX fees) seem speculative. The environment remains pro-cyclicals, but not guaranteed.
Even if M&A remains hot, advisory/underwriting fees are volatile and a sharp slowdown or regulatory headwinds could stress dividend coverage; a stress test isn't a guarantee of future profits.
"Goldman's pivot to recurring asset management fees provides a structural floor that mitigates the cyclical volatility of their investment banking division."
Claude, you’re right that M&A is cyclical, but you’re missing the shift in GS's asset management strategy. They are aggressively pivoting toward 'Alternatives'—private credit and real estate—which provide recurring management fees that are far stickier than one-off IPO advisory. This transition creates a structural floor for earnings that didn't exist in previous cycles. GS isn't just an IB shop anymore; they are evolving into a fee-based asset manager, which justifies the 18x multiple.
"Alternatives revenue is stickier than IPO fees but remains cyclical and illiquid—not a structural earnings floor."
Gemini's pivot-to-alternatives thesis needs scrutiny. Yes, GS is building alternatives—but AUM growth in private credit doesn't instantly convert to earnings. Management fees on alternatives typically run 1-2% annually, yet GS still needs to deploy capital and manage duration risk. More critically: alternatives are illiquid and cyclical themselves. A credit crunch or PE dry-up hits alternatives harder than equity underwriting. The 'structural floor' claim assumes benign credit conditions indefinitely. That's not a floor; it's a different ceiling.
"Alternatives AUM growth ties GS earnings and capital to the same cyclical liquidity shocks that already threaten its IB revenue."
Gemini, the alternatives pivot does not automatically create a recurring-fee floor. Private-credit and real-estate funds still embed duration and redemption risk; a 2026 rate shock or PE exit drought could trigger forced sales that hit both fee income and CET1 ratios simultaneously. That linkage between illiquid AUM and capital volatility is missing from the structural-floor argument and directly undercuts the margin-of-safety claim at 18x.
"The 'structural floor' from alternatives is unlikely to withstand cyclical shocks; revenue from alternatives is still cyclical and can shrink in a downturn, threatening the 18x valuation."
Gemini's pivot-to-alternatives as a structural floor is too optimistic. Recurring fees exist but hinge on AUM, liquidity terms, and fund vintages; a rate shock or PE cycle downturn can compress fees and force deleveraging that hurts CET1. Even with asset management growth, Goldman remains IB-heavy; a single windfall from IPOs won't reliably offset cyclical declines. Without durable, cross-cycle inflows, the 18x multiple stays risky.
Panelists are largely neutral to bearish on Goldman Sachs (GS) at 18x forward earnings, citing cyclical nature of M&A and investment banking fees, and uncertainty around IPO windfalls. Gemini's 'pivot-to-alternatives' thesis is debated, with Claude, Grok, and ChatGPT expressing skepticism about its ability to create a structural floor for earnings.
Potential recurring fees from alternatives pivot
Cyclical decline in M&A and investment banking activity